Americans must draw some sad and worrisome conclusions about President Obama in light of the revelation that he has spoken with his commander in Afghanistan a grand total of once since assuming the office of POTUS.
Blanketing the airwaves with TV appearances, hitting an endless campaign trail to deliver yet another iteration of his healthcare stump speech, and flying off to Copenhagen with a couple of cabinet secretaries (and Oprah!) to campaign for Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics are, to President Obama, worthier expenditures of his time and energy.
It makes perfect sense to John Bolton:
"If you think there are no threats, then it’s not illogical to pay no attention to the rest of the world. The problem is in his [Obama’s] basic reading of the international environment where we do continue to face massive threats from international terrorists and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among others."Ed Morrissey agrees that this reveals the president's true priorities:
Being utterly out of his depth, distrustful of the military, uncomfortable with the concept of 'victory,' and unlikely to be receptive to the message that Gen. McChrystal would deliver, it's natural that Obama would avoid him. I'm not John McCain's biggest fan, but does anyone doubt that he would be fully engaged with our military and the two wars that they're fighting for us?
If Afghanistan is his “top priority” and “a war that we have to win,” wouldn’t Obama have carved out a little time in his schedule to meet with the man tasked with winning it more than once since appointing him in June? It may have forced him to skip a Wagyu beef dinner and perhaps a night on the town in New York City, but those are the sacrifices that a CinC has to make from time to time.
In comparison, how many conversations will Obama have in Copenhagen to land the Olympics for Chicago? What does that say about the Commander in Chief’s priorities?
Jules Crittenden offers a Shakespearean take on this tragic miscasting and links to more reactions. (h/t: Sister Toldjah)
It was all there before the election: the padded but still painfully thin resumé, the absolute lack of executive and foreign policy experience, the poor judgment, the narcissism, the radical background. But with the mainstream media providing some critical support, Americans chose to fill the role of POTUS with a person unfit to play it. Turns out Joe Biden was half right: yes, Obama is being tested early on by international crises, but no, his spine does not seem to be made of steel.
*Updated: Dissatisfaction rising on the left, via Hot Air.
Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is.Howard Fineman takes it a several steps further:
The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief.
[. . .]Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.
The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.Obama the newbie hasn't a clear idea of how Congress works. Nor does he seem to understand what his real responsibilities are as POTUS. He's our faux president.
[. . .]
Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won't cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama's measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care. Never much of a legislator (and not long a senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major "reform" bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its "leadership." It's not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.
[. . .]
Obama seems to think he'll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies.
Most recent posts here.